The Many Incarnations of Jane Eyre

I’m looking forward to seeing the newest cinematic version of Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte, the tale of the plain orphan girl who wins the heart of the fearsome Mr. Rochester, he with the crazy wife in the tower. 

This great old chestnut is always checked out of the library. Clearly, it’s been around since 1847 for a reason. Jane Eyre is the original chick lit, but great chick lit. Its plot line combines many genres in one: mystery, gothic suspense, rags to riches, coming of age, ghost story and romance with palpable sexual tension. Jane is plain and pious, but self-reliant and intelligent. Although she suffers many travails, she doesn’t wait to be rescued; nor does she seek our pity. Some call it a very early feminist novel.

Everyone has her own images of Jane and Rochester, and I’m no exception. I’m going to list five of the many film and television adaptations, starting from worst to best. This is just my opinion, of course.

5. I really disliked the 1996 version starring William Hurt as Rochester and Charlotte Gainsbourough as Jane. Hurt plays Rochester as damaged and brooding, but really comes across as annoying. And Charlotte Gainsbourough? I’m sorry, that girl is just homely, with nothing of the character’s plain/pretty allure. The two generated zero chemistry.

4. Toby Stephens and Ruth Wilson starred in a Masterpiece Theatre adaptation, and a fine job they did. I found Toby Stephens petulant rather than forbidding; and of necessity, the multi-episode format attenuated the story a bit. After Jane returns to the damaged Rochester, they talk it to death! Much more effective to leave them at the moment they finally come together.

3. I loved George C. Scott in the TV version with Susannah York. He is older, gruff, angry and scary—unattractive in a way that reflects his inner turmoil. When he sarcastically asks Jane if she finds him handsome, we believe her when she says no.  This piece is quite truncated and smaltzy, with an obtrusive musical motif, but very romantic. It’s gratifying to see George C. Scott slowly melt as he falls for Jane, unlike William Hurt who simply ratchets the gloom down a notch. Susannah York is a fine Jane, though truth be told, both she and Scott were a tad too long in the tooth for the parts.

2. Among many of my fellow Eyreites, the 1983 BBC adaptation starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke is considered the gold standard. It’s long, and very faithful to the book, but come on! When Rochester asks Jane if she finds him handsome, she says, “No, Sir” to Timothy Dalton? He is wonderful in the role, but Rochester can’t be gorgeous. At the end, however, when he is blind and lame, his fall is all the more heartbreaking. Zelah Clarke is another fine Jane, her diminutiveness an asset in the role.

1. Drum roll, please. My favorite is the 1944 movie starring Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine. The film is shot in high-contrast black and white, rendering shadows darker, Thornfield more menacing. When Rochester comes galloping across the moor, nearly running Jane down, the clouds glow brilliant white against the darkening sky. The Bernard Herrmann score is appropriately soaring and emotive. (He also scored Vertigo and Psycho.) Orson Welles is yes, corny, with his menacing heavy-browed, bugged-eyed stare. Joan Fontaine is too pretty, but charming in her tentativeness and admirable when she asserts, “Just because I’m plain and poor and obscure and little, haven’t I as much heart as you?” And don’t forget: 10 year-old Elizabeth Taylor, looking like she descended from heaven, plays the doomed Helen Burns.

Why does this story endure? Only Pride and Prejudice rivals Jane Eyre in its many adaptations. Charlotte Bronte tells us that, like she herself, you don’t have to be beautiful and rich to find love—which come to think of it, is a theme of Pride and Prejudice, too.

We have most of these film versions at the library. Check them out and pick your favorite Jane Eyre.